Medieval Battles

[Todd Eriksen]

As always, I bounce things off of Mr. Pynenberg first before I post, and since I am in the process of writing an historical fiction about Towton, I have a question that I'd like to put forth. I realize that most nobles would surround themselves with the best soldiers that they could buy but how did they fight in a set battle? I really think about the Black Prince at Poitiers. Was the fighting man to man, in a "gentlemenly way", or was it I have more and better guys than you so beat this!?" What are all of your educated thoughts? History books and research lead you to think that it was a gentlemenly thing to fight a battle, but if your butt is on the line, regardless of your training, you'd want to surround yourself with very good back up.

[William Savage]

If your asking if nobles tried not to outnumber each other in a fight then Id say no. Not in battle. I don't think knights cared if they fought three to one, maybe they'd just be more likely to give quarter or whatever its called.

And for the rest of them, the non-nobles, I don't think the ratios mattered.

Just my thoughts.

[Will Adamson]

IMHO the context of each conflict determines the civility and types of tactics used. You could compare it to our current Geneva Conventions rules. They are there, but not always followed completely. Sometimes they are even broken without realizing it. Conflicts are never 'clean' affairs anyway. Even arranged and comparatively civil duels were still nasty affairs.

In general I would say that when a battle ensued because of one side going after the other because of some perceived slight, the rules tended to go out the window. But if it was "business" then there was a definite bonus in not offing a nobleman since they could be ransomed like Richard coming back from the third crusade. There is a long tradition of this in Europe. Augustus was captured by pirates early in his life and was ransomed. He told them that after they let him go he was going to come after them and kill each one of them, and he did. (I'm a little far removed from my Roman history, so I hope I didn't mistake this story for a Julius Caesar one.)

I'm sure some of the forum members with more specific research backgrouds will jump all over this for you. I'm in the process of filling in this 1300 year gap in my military history knowledge.

Also remember that history is written by the victors, revised by the pacifists, then ultimately retrieved by the archaeologists.

[s_taillebois]

The numbers also depended on the context. Largely medieval armies had a greater proportion of henchmen and yeomanry than of the nobility. For example when Saladin hit Richard 1st a near Jaffa (4th August 1192) Richards army had about 2,000 infantry, 54 knights and a contingent of bowmen and crossbow people. The fixed defenses consisted of the lower orders, the cavaliers were used mainly as for sortees and etc.
At this battle, the proportion of knights to commoners was very low, but in general the armor plated aristocracy weren't ever the predominant groups as far as numbers. Their relative effectiveness was another matter.
Concerning chivalric conduct in battle, that was more in evidence after or prior to a fight. Although there were some cases of such during a battle. Saladin at the aforementioned battle, sent a new horse to Richard after he had been dehorsed (gesture of respect for his valor) But on the whole, such as Richard, Saladin, or El Cid were exceptions not the rule.
As you'd be aware from your readings about Towton, in general Medieval/early Renn. battles left fairly little room for stylized violence. The weapons made that unlikely...for example John of Joinville speaking of the battle of Mansourah' "Frederick of Loupey had a lance thrust between his shoulders, which made so large a wound that blood poured from his body as if from a bung hole in a barrel...A blow from one of the enemies swords landed in the middle of Erard of Siverey's face, cutting through his nose so that it was left dangling from his lips. At that moment the thought of St. James came to my mind, and I prayed to him....(later on when referring to the rout, Joinville mentioned the following....)
"Riding straight towards us, as we were holding the little bridge came Count Peter of Brittany, with a sword cut across his face, from which blood ran down to his mouth. He was mounted on a very handsome pony, but he had thrown the reins over the pommel of his saddle, which he was gripping with both hands for fear that his men, who were following too close for comfort, might jostle him out of position as he crossed the narrow bridge. it would seem he had a poor opinion of them, for as he spat blood out of his mouth, he kept exclaiming, "Good Lord, did you ever see such scum"
Antony Bridge "The Crusades" 1982
Medieval battles tended to be very chaotic, and during the course of such these armies would have sizeable numbers simply, walk away in various conditions.
So the controlled ritualism of the chansons, very unlikely... and even more so under the context of Towton... the wars of the roses were essentially a civil war...

[Todd Eriksen]

Great info! I'm going to rephrase my question just a bit. Let's say that I'm a nobleman and I'm going to fight at Towton. I bring along all of my personally hired 'body guard', my household retainers, along to the battle. Not only do I have men at arms, but I also have a handful of personally picked archers. When the battle ensues, do my retainers stay with me or are they divied out amongst the battle lines? Will I keep my personal archers with me, or do I hand them over to the commander of the archers? Yes, I'm expected to bring so many participants to the battle for my liege dependant of my land holdings, but with my own handpicked retained soldiers, wouldn't I want to keep them with me? So if all the nobles do this will it throw off the theory of the wedged, massed archers on the flanks and on each side of the battle groups?

[s_taillebois]

Your henchmen, such as the marshal and etc, would have stayed with the noble. Lit. example would be in Beowulf, Wiglaf was honor bound to stay with Beowulf, even when the others ran. At Hastings, Harold Godwinson's personal retainers had to be killed before the Norman's could hack up his body.
Yeomanry could be attached to levee's and put under anothers command, as it generally implied no loss of status.
But for a liege to command the use of another's henchmen, would have been an insult by the fuedal code. First it was a direct undermining of the lower nobles household authority, and second it was often considered an insult to the henchmen. Have to remember these were men, who at times, slept in doorways as a gesture of protection to their lord. If they were treated well (the literal meaning of a fuedal lord being called a ring giver), they often took their status as 'sentinel-guard' as a very honorable calling. So to be sent 'down the line' as it were, under the command of another, would have been an insult. The implication would have been they were untrustworthy or un-needed for their lords worst dangers. Especially, if they would be asked to serve (even temporarily) a lesser noble.
Have to consider that fuedal obligations often correlated to a concern about loss of status. And as such, to keep their retainers loyal, fuedal lords had to be very careful to keep to the proper perceptions. Think of it this way, during the period in question....kings often had to negotiate for nobles to go to war for them, they often were unable to command the nobility to provide all their military assets, without constraints. This was particularly true in the Ile De France. Very different from the nation state mobilization of an army.